Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
We tried your way....tax cuts heavily favoring the wealthy, tax incentives and breaks for corporations,de-regulation, etc...and it failed.
|
My way? My way would be a simple tax code based on consumption rather than income. My way would be regulation based on clearly defined and measurable goals and objectives. My way would be to allow failing institutions to fail. My way would be fiscal discipline that would rarely result in deficit spending (I think deficit spending is o.k. in times of war or crisis). My way would be term limits for members of Congress. My way would be cabinet nominees pay their taxes in the year the taxes are due with no relationship to being nominated.
-----Added 3/2/2009 at 12 : 34 : 19-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by guyy
Like it or not, banks etc. play a central role in today's capitalist economy. Yes, you can let banks fail. Money & goods will then circulate more slowly and in smaller amounts. Get rid of evil fiat currency and that circulation can be even slower and smaller.
In some cases, the motor behind the laissez-faillir argument is a kind of nihilism. In others, it's merely ignorance.
|
Or, the government could do what worked during the S&L crisis if you are in fear of what would happen if the government did not step in. I don't fear bank failures and I think banks when they begin to think they are too big to fail assume more risk. Good conservative, well managed banks should be rewarded, we should not reward failure with bailouts.
-----Added 3/2/2009 at 12 : 41 : 49-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
I always thought the TARP came out of the Bush Admin. back in Sept. or Oct. '08 and was written by (mostly) Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chair Ben Bernanke.
|
Yes, and it was "inadequate". Democrats were all over the media talking about it and how they improved it. Obama specifically said the final version met all of his requirements.
Quote:
And my home work shows JP Morgan took 25B in Tarp funs-
So, they did better after taking 25B in TARP in '08 then they did in '07 when they didn't get an extra 25B, right?
|
Did they have the real option of not taking the TARP money? Did they step in, as a healthy financial institution, and buy distressed institutions and assets? Did they offer mortgage relief to some of their clients? Did they do what was asked of them with the money? However, the real point is that there are people working at JPM that deserve and earned their bonuses. Are you disputing that or are we on a different point?